Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

OR

Log-in

User Name

Password

Remember Me?

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

10-30-2012 09:16 PM

Slush Puppie

For those who are in the "can't quite wrap my head around how evolution could create such complex beings without help" camp, here's an interesting article in which scientist at Bristol University England have been able to model the evolution of sight over a timescale 700 million years using...

"...computational analysis to test every hypothesis of opsin evolution proposed to date. The analysis incorporated all available genomic information from all relevant animal lineages, including a newly sequenced group of sponges (Oscarella carmela) and the Cnidarians, a group of animals thought to have possessed the world's earliest eyes.

Using this information, the researchers developed a timeline with an opsin ancestor common to all groups appearing some 700 million years ago."

Over a timescale that long - which we are barely able to comprehend - perhaps you might start to see a lot less need for a 'designer' or even a 'guider' as an explanation for our present day complexity.

❝Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.❞ - Frantz Fanon

❝Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.❞ - Frantz Fanon

Toyota uses/used hemisperical heads on their engines for years without labelling them as such. Course Dodge has to go and call it "HEMI" and make a big deal about it.

Besides, Toyota 4-cyl > American V8s...

HA HA!

hondas and acuras use hemispherical heads as well because its a very efficient combustion model. The Welch Motor Company is supposedly the first manufacturer to use it.
And yes Toyota motors are more reliable but they are not more fun.

Your all so intelligent about this subject. Let's say we start a debate about panheads vs shovelhead or small block vs big vs flathead.
I mean real stuff, not fiction. You know the stuff real men debate about.

Your all so intelligent about this subject. Let's say we start a debate about panheads vs shovelhead or small block vs big vs flathead.
I mean real stuff, not fiction. You know the stuff real men debate about.

Toyota uses/used hemisperical heads on their engines for years without labelling them as such. Course Dodge has to go and call it "HEMI" and make a big deal about it.

Besides, Toyota 4-cyl > American V8s...

HA HA!

10-16-2012 02:49 PM

devo

Your all so intelligent about this subject. Let's say we start a debate about panheads vs shovelhead or small block vs big vs flathead.
I mean real stuff, not fiction. You know the stuff real men debate about.

The guy in the video rhymes about things. As far as meaning, it was vapid. I'm sure he means well but he needs to think a little harder.

If I just hand you a book and say, "this is everything you need to know. Don't worry about the authors or when it was written, or how it was edited and don't worry about what the people thought about this author at the time he wrote this. And don't worry about how people viewed this book since it was released. Also, the publishing company made the final decisions about content because there were so many submissions. Best of luck."

This point provides power for atheists/agnostics and people who adhere to a strict framework for their religion. But it cuts the legs out from under those people who want to kind of believe, who want to believe Eckhart Tolle, that we are all apart of the God-consciousness, or televangelists like Joel Olsteen.

Best of luck.

Welcome the wonderful world of debating religion and the rest of this conversation. I'm having trouble understanding your point though, I understand where you're coming from..but so what?

This thread has more than 10 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.